2. Return of separeted and unaccompanied children to institutional reception or family 1.The current state of affairs 2.The perspective of states 3.The perspective of children 4.Return to family 5.Return to institutional reception 6.UNICEF approach 7.Recommendations

3. Current state 1.A significant number of unaccompanied children in the EU 2.States invest heavily in increasing the number of returns 3.Yet, return hardly takes place 4.Asylum is in many cases not granted 5.Consequences: long periods of uncertainty, illegality when approaching 18, ageing out then return, voluntary return (as a result of pressure or not)

4. The perspective of states Return of rejected asylum cases is desired. The only options are: 1.Return to family 2.Return to ‘adequate reception’

5. The perspective of children Upon rejection of an asylum claim: 1.Facing pressure from the state to return 2.Facing the future of turning 18 3.For a part of them - facing pressure from the family to achieve the goals they left for 4.For a part of them – fear for the consequences of actually returning

6. Return to family Family tracing as an area of investment: –methodology and safeguards are undefined, emerging from practice –Consent of and/or information to the child? –Which actors to use for tracing? –Safeguards when tracing? –Moment to start the trace? –Is the goal re-establishing contact in search of a durable solution or establishing that a child is not unaccompanied

7. Return to institutional reception 1.Is it happening? 2.Only real frame of reference with return houses: the Netherlands – Angola, 2003-2005 (and inactive –present). 3.Facts: 1.None arrived, only 3 to 6 went between 2003 and 2005 2.Voluntary return went up (several hundreds of Angolan minors), illegality increased 3.Intimidating effects were assumed, but the facts hardly support this (attribution). 4.No monitoring, incidental information on their well-being (from good to very bad) More recently it emerged as a policy goal several times

8. Return to institutional reception 1.Is return to institutional reception choice as a result of a best interest determination? 2.When is reception adequate? 3.What are ‘local standards’ and how are those defined? 4.What is the long-term perspective upon return? 5.Are effects monitored?

9. UNICEF approach International obligations should be central in the approach Turn priorities: prioritize a durable solution and best interest determination over the focus on an actual return A changed perspective: durable solutions are not reached for the target group, instead of the number of returns is too low

10. Recommendations Assess the security situation carefully, on a country and local basis and specifically for children Carry out a BID to identify a durable solution for every separated child Develop and use child rights-based procedures for tracing and contacting families Respect the best interests of children in returning to families Work on possibilities for long-term development and durable solutions Conduct public consultations now on policy provisions needed to accompany emerging practices Do not return children tot institutional reception unless the recommended safeguards are in pace

11. Sources & contact Upcoming report: Children’s rights in return policy and practice; The return of separated and unaccompanied children to institutional reception or family (UNICEF & UNICEF National Committees) Jmurk@unicef.nl 0031 6 10687626